Schumer Saves the Day

For John, BLUF:  I don't think President Trump should be firing anyone in Main Justice, nor anyone from the Special Counsel Office, but that doesn't mean that I hold those folks in a lot of respect.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Schumer: Trump firing Rosenstein would spark 'constitutional crisis'

From The Hill, by Reporter Jordain Carney, 10 April 2018.

Here is the quote from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer:

"For the sake of our country, we plead with you.  Don’t put this country through a constitutional crisis.  ...  The rule of law is paramount in this country.  No man, not even the president, is above it."

How is there a Constitutional Crisis unless Mr Schumer stirs one up?

Maybe Mr Schumer believes that by shouting about it he has President Trump on notice and thus prevents anything untoward from happening.

As I think about it, the idea of a cabinet or sub-cabinet official who can not be fired is an absurdity.  Otherwise the President is hamstrung.  A hamstrung President is no President.  And, from a certain perspective, that is what the likes of Senator Schumer wishes.

But, the question of firing Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is just a surrogate for the question of firing Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who appears to have no specific mandate, but seems to be roaming far and wide, perhaps having abandoned the original "Russia Collusion" topic for a search for every possible flaw in the President and those who work with him.

I don't think I would be OK with such a wide ranging search for criminality, given the potential to start the kind of banana republic approach of going after one's predecessor.  And it smacks too much of "Show me the man and I will find you the crime." Stalin era persecution. But, if I thought both sides were being examined I might at least find it balanced.  Maybe, in the end, Mr Mueller will be shown to believe in Truth, Justice and the American Way.  I sure hope so, but my hope is running a little thin.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The NRA and The People

For John, BLUF:  The thing is, without gun confiscation, contrary to the Fourth Amendment, gun control is a pipe dream.  Unless we are going to a totalitarian state, for our own good.♠  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Attacking the NRA is really attacking everyday Americans

From The Wash Post, by Marc A. Thiessen, on 28 February 2018.

Here is the lede plus one:

A few weeks before the school shooting in Parkland, Fla., Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar (Tex.) invited a special guest to attend the State of the Union address:  Stephen Willeford, the hero who just months earlier had stopped a mass shooter at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Tex.

Stopped the shooting with an AR-15.

Just saying….

Hat tip to the InstaPundit and Blogger Author Sarah Hoyt.

Regards  —  Cliff
-, Mon 1.0

♠  A sort of Communist/Stalinist approach to helping the People.

David Brooks Toes the Antifa Line

For John, BLUF:  Democracy is not about shouting down the other side, or bullying the other side, but about somewhat respectful dialogue.  We are at risk of losing that.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Enemies Of The People

From The American Conservative, by Mr Rod Dreher, 2 March 2018.

Here is the lede plus two:

Last night I watched “Paper Heads,” a 1995 documentary about Communism in what was then Czechoslovakia.  It mixed propaganda films from the regime with testimony from people who had been tortured in communist prisons, or whose relatives had been abused in some way by the state.  It was a crude but very powerful film.  All that talk about brotherhood and shared prosperity and justice concealed cruelty, injustice, and murder of those who stood between the Party and Paradise.

The most chilling part of the film, at least to me, were the clips of the 1950s show trials.  The rhetoric from the judges and prosecutors, and the narration by the state media announcer, denounced the accused as traitors, parasites, enemies of the people, and so forth.  And these poor people, dignified but clearly in terror, confessed to their “crimes” and received the death penalty.  Only in this way could the worker’s paradise be built, or so it was claimed by the communists in the film.

Just now I read David Brooks’s column today about how progressives are winning the culture war.  Brooks had recommended earlier a moderate approach to advancing gun control, beginning with treating gun owners with respect. He now concedes that he might have been wrong about that.

Mr Dreher then goes on to talk about what NYT Columnist Brooks had to say, and what Mr Brooks had to say was scary, reminiscent of rule under Communist regimes, where people had to toe the party line or perish.

Without saying it, Mr Brooks was praising the actions of such Stalinists as Antifa.

Somehow Mr Brooks has lost faith in, or interest in, the First Amendment freedom of speech section.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Myopic Reporting

For John, BLUF:  The CNN crowd seems to have no comprehension of history.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

CNN’s Jake Tapper: Trump Continues Eroding ‘Basic Lines of Human Decency’

By Ms Pam Key, at Breitbart, 7 February 2018.

Yes, this is three weeks old, but I wonder if News analyst Jake Tapper has repented of his attitude toward his fellow human being, President Donald Trump.  The is, after all, Lent.

Here is the lede:

Wednesday on CNN’s “The Lead,” host Jake Tapper said President Donald Trump is continuing to erode the “basic lines of human decency.”

The sin, cited in the next paragraph, by Mr Tapper, is that the President tried to keep an even hand over the problems in Charlottesville.  Like most in the media, Mr Tapper condemns the Klan and Neo-Nazis, but fails to provide equal condemnation for the Stalinist Antifa folks who were at the same location, spoiling for a fight.

Let there be no mistake, the Klan is an organization with an evil past.  The current Klan doesn't seem much better.  And those who in any way try to excuse the National Socialists are not only wrong, but willfully wrong.  That said, a Stalinist organization, such as Antifa, is covering for one of the great murderers of the last century, Comrade Joseph Stalin.  From Wikipedia:

Stalinism is the means of governing and related policies implemented by Joseph Stalin. Stalinist policies and ideas as developed in the Soviet Union, included rapid industrialization, the theory of socialism in one country, a centralized state, collectivization of agriculture, cult of personality[1] and subordination of the interests of foreign communist parties to those of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union—deemed by Stalinism to be the leading vanguard party of communist revolution at the time.

No mentioned in this short paragraph is the murder of millions of people in the Soviet Union.  Not mentioned in this short paragraph is the Leninist approach of killing those who were leaders in any way in the old regime.  Not mentioned in this short paragraph were the over one million who died in the Ukraine in order to try out the idea of collectivist farming.  Not mentioned in this short paragraph is the fact that true socialism ends up stunting an economy and impoverishing a people.

So, the President tried to be even handed and it was thrown back in his face.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Opposition to Free Speech Continues

For John, BLUF:  Reminds me of the "destroy the village in order to save it" thinking.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The "No Platform" Brigade

Writing for The Hoover Institute, Ms Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 31 January 2018.

Here is the lede plus three:

A public event with the eminent scientist and rationalist Richard Dawkins was cancelled late last year by a Berkeley radio station.  A spokesman for the station said that Dawkins had “said things that I know have hurt people,” a misleading allusion to the atheist Dawkins’s forthright criticism of Islam which, along with all religions, he regards as irrational.  The station’s general manager declared:  “We believe that it is our free speech right not to participate with anyone who uses hateful or hurtful language against a community that is already under attack.”

This is only one of the more recent in a string of dis-invitations of public figures on North American college campuses.  Following the violence at Charlottesville in August last year, free speech has become a thornier subject.  But no matter how evil, all speech is protected by the Constitution, even that of Antifa and white nationalists.  The cliché that sunlight is the best disinfectant holds true.  By allowing these groups to express themselves out in the open, we can clearly see what they are saying, and, if we disagree, counter it.

I am among those who have been “de-platformed” for speaking critically about the political and ideological aspects of Islam that are not compatible with American values and human rights.  The usual justification for disinviting us is that speaking critically of Islam is “hate speech” that is “hurtful” to Muslims.

However, this use of the words “hate” and “hurt” to silence debate is contrary to the Western tradition of critical thinking.  It is not hyperbolic to say that this is the pathway to censorship and the closing of the Western mind.

Here is the thing.  If you are against free speech you are a Fascist or a Stalinist (or a Trotskyite).  Most likely, today, in the US, you claim to be "Antifa".  You are a person who is against the idea that people can think for themselves and just need access to all the information.  If you are against free speech for all you are one of those people trying to destroy the idea of democracy in order to put forward some higher order, where the bien pensant tell the plebs how to think.  Don't be that kind of person.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Lillian Hellman Recalled

For John, BLUF:  It was a little squabble, but live on national TV, and thus it went off the rails.  But, it is as alive today as then, what with the Antifa and their ilk pushing a Stalinist line on the rest of us.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Lillian, Mary, and Me

The New Yorker, 16 December 2017, by Mr Dick Cavett.

I had forgotten, or not realized, that Novelist Mary McCarty was on the Dick Cavett show when she said of Playwright Lillian Hellman:

“Everything,” McCarthy replied, smiling.  “I said once in some interview that every word she writes is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the.’”

Ms Hellman sued Ms McCarthy, PBS and Mr Cavett.  As she died before the suit went to trial, it died with her.

Ms McCarthy was a writer of note in her day.  I read her book, The Group, when it came out, and liked it.

Ms Hellman also managed to get into a twenty-five year fight with Actress Tallulah Bankhead over a fundraiser for Finnish Relief, right after the Soviet Invasion.  Tallulah was for it and Lillian was against it.  But, Ms Hellman had written the play to be performed, The Little Foxes.  I remember Ms Bankhead, the daughter of a US Senator, for her role in Alfred Hitchcock's Lifeboat.  Yes, even though filmed exclusively in the lifeboat, Mr Hitchcock does have a cameo appearance.

The thing is, notwithstanding her play (later a film) Watch on the Rhine, Ms Hellman was a through and through Stalinist.  And what bigger lie was there in the 20th Century than being an apologist for Joseph Stalin?

Ms McCarthy, on the other hand, had turned on Communism, becoming first a Trotskyist and then an opponent of Communism.

Regards  —  Cliff

Is Democracy Over?

For John, BLUF:  Local Lowell guy gets fired for participating in a free speech rally.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Rally organizer sues Marty Walsh for $100M

Here is the sub-headline:

Claims mayor comments ‘reckless’

This is The Boston Herald, Dan Atkinson and Laurel Sweet reporting, 25 October 2017.

Right off the bat, I want to say this is outrageous.  This isn't worth much more then $20 million in actual damages.  And I will tell Brandon that the next time I see him.

Here is the lede plus one:

An organizer of a recent Free Speech Rally in Boston has filed a $100 million lawsuit against Mayor Martin J. Walsh after he says Walsh purposefully defamed the group as neo-Nazis, which led to him being hounded by internet activists and losing his job.

Lowell resident Brandon Navom filed a civil suit in Berkshire County Superior Court Monday that claimed Walsh made “knowing lies or reckless false statements” about the organizers behind the August rally, which drew a few dozen speakers and more than 20,000 counterprotesters to the Common.  He’s seeking $50 million in actual damages, $50 million in punitive damages and a declaration that Walsh’s statements were “false and defamatory.”

And, Brandon loses his job but Football Player Colin Kaepernick, and his friends, keep their high paying jobs.  And that is outrageous.

The nation is doomed, and democracy across the globe is doomed if we don't stop shutting down free speech.  You may not like what a person has to say, but you should either walk away or respectfully listen.  How would it be if I claimed Marty Walsh was a full blown Stalinist?  It would be wrong, because we know that Joseph Staff murdered more people than live in all of Suffolk County, several times over.  Remember, the tallest building in Moscow has always been the Lubyanka Prison, for from there you can see all the way to Siberia.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Comparisons

For John, BLUF:  Incentives are important, but not sufficient.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Stupidity – Communist-Style and Capitalist-Style

This is from the blog Chicago Boyz, posted by Mr David Foster, 22 September 2017.

And this is why Venezuela is in trouble.

Regards  —  Cliff

Congress—Smug, But Ignorant

For John, BLUF:  Our ignorance is dangerous.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Congress Passes Measure Challenging Trump to Denounce Hate Groups

This is from The Old Gray Lady, and reporter Glenn Thrush, 12 September 2017. The lede:

The House and Senate have unanimously passed a joint resolution urging President Trump to denounce racist and anti-Semitic hate groups, sending a blunt message of dissatisfaction with the president’s initial, equivocal response to the white nationalist violence in Charlottesville, Va., last month.

I will grant you the President was not particularly articulate after the demonstrations in Charlottesville, Virginia.  On the other hand, he was not wrong to suggest that the Antifa protestors were just as bad as the folks they were protesting, the Klan, the Neo-Nazis, the White Supremacists.  Relax for a moment and remember that the Antifa come from the line of Stalin and his ilk.

Sure, there is Prime Minister Winston Churchill's famous line "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons", referring to the German invasion of the Soviet Union, but the point was that Germany was the near threat and the Soviet Union the far threat.

Let us not be making any pacts with the Stalinists.  If Mars invades, then yes.  But, not before.  Remember, these are the people who thought the Weimar Republic should be destroyed, which, in the event, resulted in the rise of Adoph Hitler and his National Socialist Party.

---

Stephen Green, posting this item at the InstaPundit, said:

This isn’t the GOP majority I was hoping for, but it is the one I’ve come to expect.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Another Look at Antifa

TRIGGER WARNING:  The Antifa are Fascists.

For John, BLUF:  Conform to the views of the left or being ostracized.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The urge to denigrate is an attempt to establish your own superiority by imposing humiliation on someone else—as well as a naked admission that you have no other way to demonstrate your personal merit

From the blog ¡No-Pasaran!, an exposition of an article in The Tracinski Newsletter, "Moral Equivalents".

Here is the lede:

On The Tracinski Newsletter, the always accomplished Robert Tracinski has a post about Moral Equivalents.  It is his look at the "Antifa" riots in Berkeley, following up on his coverage of the upheaval in his own town of Charlottesville.  Also take a look at his take on what happened, President Trump's reaction, and how the event unhinged the left and made the Confederate statue controversy even more nonsensical.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Ever Changing Left

TRIGGER WARNINGS:  In which we look at how the left has evolved and students have regressed.

For John, BLUF:  And they haven't gotten better.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

THE OLD NEW LEFT AND THE NEW NEW LEFT

From The Claremont Review of Books, by Editor Charles R. Kesler, from 31 July 2017.

This is going to be one of those longer, Jim Peters like, Posts.

This is about how the left of the late 1950s and the 1960s thought and how the left today thinks and the differences in understanding America and understanding who they are and who we all are.

Since we are jumping in in the middle of the essay, we have to explain who the SDS, the Students for a Democratic Society are and their 1962 Manifesto, the Port Huron Statement, drafted by SDS Field Secretary, the late Tom Hayden (later the husband of Ms Jane Fonda).  Click the Links.

Some review:

Yet there was something ingenuous and almost admirable about the SDS’s early manifesto that is lacking in post-Obama radicalism.  Tom Hayden had spent fall 1961 as a Freedom Rider, getting beaten up by the KKK in Mississippi and jailed in Georgia.  He and his comrades were appalled by the racial bigotry of the American South (and North), and they revered, at least in the beginning, the non-violent civil rights movement of the 1950s and early 1960s.  They longed, in a way, to emulate the heroes of that movement, who like Martin Luther King drew explicitly from Christian sources, among others, and insisted on strenuous “self-purification” as an essential stage of non-violent consciousness.  Indeed, the Port Huron Statement quoted the Declaration of Independence and Abraham Lincoln, even as the civil rights leaders did, accusing the country of not living up to its own principles.  It assailed American hypocrisy, and the apathy and alienation that went with it.

No such Americanism, however vestigial, remains in today’s campus protestors, who celebrate only victims, not martyrs, and who have been taught to believe that America, and the West as a whole, are oppressors and nothing but oppressors, six ways from Sunday—racists, sexists, imperialists, homophobes, xenophobes, transphobes, etc.

There you are.  When Candidate Hillary Clinton said "Deplorables" she was talking the language of the New Left.  We are Les Deplorables and probably irredeemable.

Then there is this contrast with today:

The old New Left hated being treated as children by professors and deans who claimed to stand in loco parentis.  Nothing offended Tom Hayden more, as he remarked in his 1961 Letter, than American universities’ “endless repressions of free speech and thought, the stifling paternalism that infects the student’s whole perception of what is real and possible and enforces a parent-child relationship until the youth is suddenly transplanted into ‘the world.’”  When the Free Speech Movement (FSM) formed at Berkeley in 1964, its analysis of frustrated, alienated students, as Allen J. Matusow writes in his very fine The Unraveling of America:  A History of Liberalism in the 1960s (1984), “came straight out of the Port Huron Statement.”  “In our free-speech fight,” said one of FSM’s leaders, Mario Savio, “we have come up against what may emerge as the greatest problem of our nation—depersonalized, unresponsive bureaucracy.”

Well, that trend reversed, sharply.  The question, for me, is what is the intellectual basis for the views of the modern leftist students?  Below is the background for the 1960s New Left.

It hasn’t disappeared entirely, but the theory embraced by today’s campus Left is far different from that of the ’60s New Left.  The Port Huron Statement reflected deep intellectual engagement, if not exactly seriousness.  Its contemporary influences included Herbert Marcuse’s Eros and Civilization (1955) and C. Wright Mills’s The Power Elite (1956).  Marcuse, a student of Martin Heidegger’s, had perhaps the primary philosophical influence on the movement, and along with other writers helped to connect it, however tendentiously, to Freud, Nietzsche, Marx, Hegel, and Rousseau.

Ah, Herbert Marcuse.  He supposedly said, at one point, "Tear down the Weimar Republic.  Whatever replaces has to be better."  The problem is, Professor Marcuse was working to tear down the Weimar Republic.  And he was wrong about what replaced it being better.  It was replaced by the Third Reich, via the Enabling Act of 1933.

The next excerpt asks if the question is "equal rights" or "equal results".  There is a difference.

It is all quite dreary.  Consider the “basic tenets” of the position.  First, in America (and the theory seems to be purpose-built for this country) racism is pervasive, inescapable, “ordinary” and “not aberrational,” the “common, everyday experience of most people of color in this country.”  Only “most”? That equivocation is one of the many slips in this slipshod argument.  But it pales beside the refusal to define “racism.”  Does discriminating against people on the basis of race mean denying them equal rights, or objecting to the imposition of equal results?  The second principle is “material determinism” or “interest convergence,” meaning that whites (but not other races?) are guaranteed to pursue their own economic interests as a race, thus ensuring and perpetuating “white supremacy.”  Third, the “social construction” thesis, which holds that race and races are not “objective, inherent, or fixed” and correspond to no “biological or genetic reality,” but are social inventions.  But how can there be “material determinism” if races are immaterial?

Tolerance, once a goal, became, by the mid-1960s, a bad thing. 

Liberals were the enemy, but in a more urgent and comprehensive way than in the Statement.  Marcuse’s influence was growing among the radicals, and his essay “Repressive Tolerance,” published in ’65, pointed them away from their old free speech idealism and towards a more ruthless, revolutionary consciousness.  Toleration was once a great progressive cause, he argued, when liberals adopted it as a weapon against authoritarian societies.  But now it risked becoming silently repressive:  toleration in a liberal society like America was a means of neutralizing and coopting all opposition to the power structure or power elite.  It was a means of preventing a liberal society from being replaced by a revolutionary one.  Marcuse urged the students to treat tolerance as a partisan tool, i.e., to show no tolerance for “affluence,” corporate capitalism, and the war.  His argument laid the groundwork for political correctness.

So, the last extract talks about how the New Left, went violent in the late 1960s.  People like now Professor Bill Ayers.  It probably doesn't impact most of us, but I actually had met one of the men killed by the Weathermen, at the University of Wisconsin, in Madison.  A real human being, and an intellectually smart one, a Post-Doc, with a wife and kids.  Dead due to a deliberate act of some Weathermen.

As the New Left came more and more to resemble the old, cheering Marx and Mao, it turned its back on the Port Huron Statement’s hope for “participatory democracy” and adopted Lenin’s principle of democratic centralism, concentrating control at the top, finally in 1969 in the so-called “Weatherman” faction.  The Weatherman’s call for “Days of Rage” in Chicago, designed ultimately to stop the imperialists’ war by starting a civil war at home, failed miserably.  Afterwards, keen to sow terror, the Weathermen went underground to plant bombs, which later blew up several of their own. From Summer of Love to Days of Rage had taken a little more than two years.

The scary part is that the New New Left seems to have not learned anything.  In violent protests they could polarize the nation and bring it down.  The thing is, one may be against the Klan and Fascism, but still be against a more Stalinist approach.  The question is, where is the acceptable middle in all of this?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Internal State Sponsored Terrorism

For John, BLUF:  Millions dead, for what?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Order of Lenin: ‘Find Some Truly Hard People’

An Opinion Piece by Mr Jonathan Brent, in The Old Gray Lady.

This isn't just about Vladimir Lenin's use of terrorism to manage the crisis of the Soviet Union at the end of World War I.  It is also about Joseph Stalin and his use of terror in the 1930s and again in the early 1950s, including the "(Jewish) Doctors Plot".

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Bernie Off the Beam

For John, BLUF:  Factories and Offices are open two days a week, due to a lack of electricity.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Hey Bernie, I left Venezuela's socialism behind for a reason

I know I did this back on 8 June, but it is important.

The author is Mr Erick Bremen, writing USA Today.

The lede:

As an immigrant from Latin America, I have found the current presidential election to be both depressing and terrifying — but not for the obvious reason.  The negativity in rhetoric concerns me, of course.  Yet it pales in comparison to the growing acceptance of socialism, which I thought I left behind in my formerly rich homeland, Venezuela.

I see Senator Bernie Sanders as having identified the problems we face.  I am not keen on his idea that Socialism is a solution.

When the Government is in charge of everything and nothing is working the Government solution is to tighten up and double down, and the citizen pays the price.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Fate of American Migrants to the Soviet Union

For John, BLUF:  Short answer—they didn't like the outcome.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The BBC has an interesting spin on the Soviet 1930s Great Purge, about which the article linked says:

Vladimir Putin was recently quoted as saying that Russians have nothing to be ashamed of concerning the Terror.

Of course not.  It was all those people surrounding Joseph Stalin.

The article, "Nightmare in the workers paradise", is a puff piece for Author Tim Tzouliadis' new book, The Forsaken:  An American Tragedy in Stalin's Russia.

That said, the article is important, especially for those Progressives who think about the wonders of Socialism.  For every Norway, Sweden and Denmark, there is a Soviet Union, a People's Republic of China, a Pol Pot Cambodia, a Hugo Chavez Venezuela.

The sub-headline is "It was the least heralded migration in American history."  And if you read up on it you will understand why.

Here is the lede.

At the height of the Depression, several thousand American emigrants left New York on the decks of passenger liners waving goodbye to the Statue of Liberty, bound for Leningrad.

And they didn't come back.  Even the US Embassy in Moscow didn't, couldn't, help those emigrants.  Many were executed by the Soviet security services and many others were sent to work in Siberia, in the the Gulag Archipelago, as Author Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn named it.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Voting With One's Feet

For John, BLUF:  However, eventually there will be no place to go.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Here is a great quote:

All leftist utopias tend toward Stalinism.

Thank you to Law Professor Glenn Reynolds, who used it to comment on a short blog post on "Welcome to Swedenistan…and have a lousy day".

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

A Take On Former SecState Clinton's Plan

For John, BLUF:  This is likely the way it will be this year, on both sides.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Over at InstaPundit, Mr Ed Driscoll explains this column:

Why Trump attacked New Mexico Republican Gov. Susana Martinez.

Byron York’s column in the Washington Examiner boils down to a phrase uttered in 2004 by wise New York senator who would go on to be Secretary of State:  You don’t have to fall in love, you just have to fall in line.  Evidently, that’s Trump’s motto as well.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff